Journals / Turkish Journal of Public Health / 2021 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2

Evaluation of Socio-Economic Fragility Index against Disasters: Example Turkey Provinces

Afetlere Karşı Sosyo-Ekonomik Kırılganlık Endeksinin Değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye İlleri Örneği

Pages
168–181
Publication Date
2021-07-23
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Additionally it is remarkable that provinces with high index values generally have problems such as unemployment, income inequality, dependence on agricultural growth, deprivation of basic health facilities and under-5 malnutrition.The studies to be carried out in the recommended areas for the provinces will help to reduce the socio-economic vulnerability of the provinces against disasters.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: SFI (Socio-Economic Fragility Index) is represented by indicators of poverty, human insecurity, addiction, illiteracy, social inequality, unemployment, inflation, dependency, debt and environmental degradation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The study is a semi-quantitative study and the index calculation method is used by weighting from a number of subindicators.The study covers the period of 2015-2017.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Additionally it is remarkable that provinces with high index values generally have problems such as unemployment, income inequality, dependence on agricultural growth, deprivation of basic health facilities and under-5 malnutrition.The studies to be carried out in the recommended areas for the provinces will help to reduce the socio-economic vulnerability of the provinces against disasters.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015-2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Afet · Risk · Savunmasızlık

Abstract

Objective: SFI (Socio-Economic Fragility Index) is represented by indicators of poverty, human insecurity, addiction, illiteracy, social inequality, unemployment, inflation, dependency, debt and environmental degradation. This index reflects the relative weaknesses or deterioration conditions that exacerbate the direct effects caused by disasters or hazardous events. Methods: The study is a semi-quantitative study and the index calculation method is used by weighting from a number of subindicators.The study covers the period of 2015-2017. Turkey has been applied to all provinces. Results: When the index averages of the provinces were examined for the 2015-2017 period, the first four provinces with the highest index value were Şırnak,Batman, Siirt and Mardin. In addition, no province was included in the low index category while 26 provinces were in the high category. The remaining 55 provinces were in the middle level. Accordingly, 32% of our provinces were in the high index category, while 68% were in the middle index category. Conclusion: It is observed that provinces with high SFI values are generally concentrated in the East and Southeast regions. Additionally it is remarkable that provinces with high index values generally have problems such as unemployment, income inequality, dependence on agricultural growth, deprivation of basic health facilities and under-5 malnutrition.The studies to be carried out in the recommended areas for the provinces will help to reduce the socio-economic vulnerability of the provinces against disasters.

Özet

Amaç: SEKE (Sosyo-Ekonomik Kırılganlık Endeksi) yoksulluk, insan güvensizliği,bağımlılık, eğitimsizlik, sosyal eşitsizlik, işsizlik, enflasyon, bağımlılık, borç ve çevresel bozulma göstergeleri ile temsil edilmektedir. Bu Endeks, afetlerin veya tehlikeli olayların neden olduğu doğrudan etkileri daha da kötüleştiren göreceli zayıflıkları veya bozulma koşullarını yansıtmaktadır. Yöntem: Çalışma yarıkantitatif bir çalışmadır ve endeks hesaplama yöntemi bir dizi alt göstergeden ağırlıklandırılarak kullanılmaktadır. Çalışma 2015-2017 dönemlerini kapsamaktadır ve Türkiye’nin tüm illerine uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: 2015-2017 döneminde illerin endeks ortalamaları incelendiğinde, endeks değeri en yüksek ilk dört il Şırnak,Batman, Siirt ve Mardin’dir. Buna ek olarak, 26 il yüksek kategoride iken, düşük endeks kategorisine hiçbir il dahil edilmemiştir. Kalan 55 il orta düzeydeydi.Buna göre illerimizin% 32’si yüksek endeks kategorisinde, %68’i orta endeks kategorisindeydi. Sonuç: SEKE değeri yüksek olan illerin genel olarak Doğu ve Güneydoğu bölgesinde yoğunlaştığı görülmektedir. Ayrıca endeks değeri yüksek olan illerde genellikle işsizlik, gelir eşitsizliği, tarımsal büyümeye bağımlılık, temel sağlık imkânlarından yoksun olma ve 5-yaş altı yetersiz beslenme gibi sorunlar olduğu dikkat çekicidir. İller için önerilen alanlarda yapılacak çalışmalar, illerin afetlere karşı sosyo-ekonomik savunmasızlığının azaltılmasına yardımcı olacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAPRAK, Ü., ŞAHİNÖZ, T., ŞAHİNÖZ, S. (2021). Evaluation of Socio-Economic Fragility Index against Disasters: Example Turkey Provinces. Turkish Journal of Public Health, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2, 168–181. https://ajindex.com/articles/944244

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. ADB (Asian Development Bank).Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Disaster in the Pacific. Philippines: Asian Development Bank Publishing; 2008. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). States of Fragility 2016: Under Stating Violence.Paris: OECD Publishing; 2016. IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). Global Estimates 2014:People Displaced by Disasters. Geneva: Imprimerie Harder; 2014. Boer J. Resilience and the Fragile City.International Journal of Security & Development. 2015;4:1-7. Tipson FS. Natural Disasters as Threats to Peace. Washington: United States Institute of Peace; 2013.
  2. Tezer A, Okay N, Kadioğlu M.Standardization of Multi-Hazard Based Risk Mitigation in Spatial Planning.Turkey Geological Congress; 2017 April 10-14; Ankara. GAC (Global Agenda Councils). The Role of the Private sector in Fragile State:Catalyzing Investment for Security and Development. World Economic Forum.Switzerland: GAC; 2014. TEPAV (Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey). Natural disasters.Barriers to Development: World Bank Independent Evaluation Group Report.Ankara: Economic Policy Research Institute; 2005. ReliefWeb. Compounding Risk:Disaster. Fragility and Conflict. New York: ReliefWeb Publising;2015. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ClimateChange_DisastersFragilityConflict_EN_2015.pdf. Accessed: 17.07.2019.
  3. Dorsch M, Dunz K, Maarek P. Macro shocks and costly political action in non-democracies. Public Choice. 2015;16:381-404.
  4. Brinkman HJ, Hendrix CS. Insecurity and violent conflict: Causes. consequences and addressing the challenges. WorldFood Programme. Occasional Paper::2011;24:1-28.
  5. Ian C, Hilhorst D. Human Security and Capacity in Fragile States. Wageningen:Wageningen University; 2009.
  6. Ünver M, Doğru B. The Determinants of Economic Fragility: Case of the Fragility Five Countries. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Journal.2015;31:1-24.
  7. Cardona OD. “A System of Indicators for Disaster Risk Management in the Americas” in Measuring Vulnerability to Hazards of Natural Origin: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. Tokyo:United Nations University Press; 2006. Cannon T. Vulnerability Analysis.Livelihoods and Disasters Components and variables of vulnerability:modelling and analysis for disaster risk management. IADB/IDEA Program on Indicators for Disaster Risk Management. Manizales: Universidad Nacional de Colombia; 2003. Wisner B. Turning knowledge into timely and appropiate action: Reflections on IADB/IDEA program of disaster ris